## Facts

- The People filed a juvenile wardship petition against Elijah W., a 10-year-old, based on an arson allegation.
- A public defender was appointed and sought expert psychological assistance to evaluate Elijah’s competency due to his age and immaturity.
- Defense counsel requested appointment of Dr. Catherine Scarf as a defense expert who would maintain confidentiality and not disclose communications made in the evaluation.
- The juvenile court denied the request and limited the defense to selecting an evaluator from the court’s Juvenile Competency to Stand Trial (JCST) Panel.
- Public defenders had been told JCST panel members viewed themselves as mandated reporters under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA) and believed CANRA and Tarasoff-type duties could require reporting child abuse or threats despite defense confidentiality.
- Elijah petitioned for writ relief, arguing that restricting him to panel experts who would report confidential disclosures impaired defense confidentiality and his ability to obtain effective expert assistance.

## Issues

1. Whether a juvenile defendant may be restricted to court-panel competency evaluators who will treat themselves as mandated reporters, rather than being permitted a defense-appointed psychologist who will maintain attorney-client confidentiality.
2. Whether CANRA’s mandatory reporting requirements apply to a psychologist acting solely as a defense expert within the attorney-client privilege.
3. Whether Tarasoff-type duties to warn or protect can be applied to a defense-retained psychologist in a manner that defeats defense confidentiality and fair-trial rights.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of mandate.
- The court held the juvenile court erred by limiting Elijah’s choice of expert assistance to JCST panel psychologists who would treat themselves as mandated reporters notwithstanding defense confidentiality.
- The court concluded Elijah was entitled to a defense expert psychologist who would maintain confidentiality under the attorney-client privilege and not treat CANRA or Tarasoff as overriding those obligations in the defense-expert role.
- The court directed the juvenile court to permit appointment of the requested defense expert (or otherwise allow a non-panel expert who will maintain defense confidentiality).

## Legal Principles

- Communications with experts engaged to assist counsel for purposes of legal representation fall within the attorney-client privilege and related confidentiality protections for the defense team.
- Statutes should not be construed to impair the right to counsel and a fair trial absent a clear legislative command.
- CANRA’s mandated reporting scheme does not displace attorney-client confidentiality and privilege as applied to a psychologist functioning solely as a confidential defense expert in juvenile delinquency proceedings.
- Tarasoff-type duties cannot be extended to require disclosures by a defense expert that would defeat attorney-client confidentiality in this context, absent clear authorization.
- Forcing a defendant to use only experts who will report confidential disclosures risks chilling candid communication and undermines effective expert assistance, jeopardizing fair-trial protections.

## Conclusion

The court required that a juvenile defendant be allowed confidential defense-expert assistance for competency work and held that mandatory reporting and related warning duties cannot be applied to override attorney-client privilege and defense confidentiality in the defense-expert relationship.


Elijah W. v. Superior Court, 216 Cal. App. 4th 140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)